Yet Another Spencer and Christy MSU Version?

From:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu...adme.09Sep2006

Update 9 Sept 2006 *****************************

We are nearing completion of the new diurnal corrections and
the conversion of AMSU data to mimic MSU data (rather than
substituting AMSU5 for MSU2, as in v5.2). We will likely use a
statistical combination of AMSU4-9 to generate a more
realistic MSU2 from which LT and MT are derived. This will
make the time series more consistent.

The diurnal drift and hot target effects of NOAA-15 and
NOAA-16 render the recent months of v5.2 too warm since
we haven't adjusted for those effects. As a quick solution,
we are subsituting a preliminary version of LT (v6.0p)
for Jan - Aug 2006 for which these adjustments have been
applied. We caution that there are still likely to be some
changes to v6.0 when it is released in a month or two, but
this seemed the best path to take given the growing errors
especially in NOAA-15 LT. The remaining months prior to Jan 2006
will be v5.2 as before, so we will still label those months as
v5.2. When we have completed v6.0, we will relabel all of the
datasets accordingly.


Also, please see:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu...tltglhmam_6.0p

The change currently is from .135K/decade global trend to
..128K/decade. In the future this change will underreport
warming. There are many interpretations of satellite microwave
sounding unit, or MSU, data, this team at the University of Alabama,
Huntsville, UAH, produces one that shows less warming
that the others.

For more background on MSU, please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...erature_record


I'll leave it to those who do such things to document the
connections between Spencer an Christy and the Carbon
fuel industry.


Roger Coppock wrote:
Yet Another Spencer and Christy MSU Version?

From:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu...adme.09Sep2006

Update 9 Sept 2006 *****************************

We are nearing completion of the new diurnal corrections and
the conversion of AMSU data to mimic MSU data (rather than
substituting AMSU5 for MSU2, as in v5.2). We will likely use a
statistical combination of AMSU4-9 to generate a more
realistic MSU2 from which LT and MT are derived. This will
make the time series more consistent.

The diurnal drift and hot target effects of NOAA-15 and
NOAA-16 render the recent months of v5.2 too warm since
we haven't adjusted for those effects. As a quick solution,
we are subsituting a preliminary version of LT (v6.0p)
for Jan - Aug 2006 for which these adjustments have been
applied. We caution that there are still likely to be some
changes to v6.0 when it is released in a month or two, but
this seemed the best path to take given the growing errors
especially in NOAA-15 LT. The remaining months prior to Jan 2006
will be v5.2 as before, so we will still label those months as
v5.2. When we have completed v6.0, we will relabel all of the
datasets accordingly.


Also, please see:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu...tltglhmam_6.0p

The change currently is from .135K/decade global trend to
..128K/decade. In the future this change will underreport
warming. There are many interpretations of satellite microwave
sounding unit, or MSU, data, this team at the University of Alabama,
Huntsville, UAH, produces one that shows less warming
that the others.

For more background on MSU, please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...erature_record


I'll leave it to those who do such things to document the
connections between Spencer an Christy and the Carbon
fuel industry.


Roger Coppock wrote:
Yet Another Spencer and Christy MSU Version?

From:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu...adme.09Sep2006

Update 9 Sept 2006 *****************************

We are nearing completion of the new diurnal corrections and
the conversion of AMSU data to mimic MSU data (rather than
substituting AMSU5 for MSU2, as in v5.2). We will likely use a
statistical combination of AMSU4-9 to generate a more
realistic MSU2 from which LT and MT are derived. This will
make the time series more consistent.

The diurnal drift and hot target effects of NOAA-15 and
NOAA-16 render the recent months of v5.2 too warm since
we haven't adjusted for those effects. As a quick solution,
we are subsituting a preliminary version of LT (v6.0p)
for Jan - Aug 2006 for which these adjustments have been
applied. We caution that there are still likely to be some
changes to v6.0 when it is released in a month or two, but
this seemed the best path to take given the growing errors
especially in NOAA-15 LT. The remaining months prior to Jan 2006
will be v5.2 as before, so we will still label those months as
v5.2. When we have completed v6.0, we will relabel all of the
datasets accordingly.


Also, please see:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu...tltglhmam_6.0p

Roger Coppock wrote:
The change currently is from .135K/decade global trend to
.128K/decade. In the future this change will underreport
warming.

Sounds like we don't need anyone to analyze MSU.
You seem to know a priori what the number is so we'll just ask you.

There are many interpretations of satellite microwave
sounding unit, or MSU, data, this team at the University of Alabama,
Huntsville, UAH, produces one that shows less warming
that the others.

For more background on MSU, please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...erature_record


I'll leave it to those who do such things to document the
connections between Spencer an Christy and the Carbon
fuel industry.


Roger Coppock wrote:
Yet Another Spencer and Christy MSU Version?

From:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu...adme.09Sep2006

Update 9 Sept 2006 *****************************

We are nearing completion of the new diurnal corrections and
the conversion of AMSU data to mimic MSU data (rather than
substituting AMSU5 for MSU2, as in v5.2). We will likely use a
statistical combination of AMSU4-9 to generate a more
realistic MSU2 from which LT and MT are derived. This will
make the time series more consistent.

The diurnal drift and hot target effects of NOAA-15 and
NOAA-16 render the recent months of v5.2 too warm since
we haven't adjusted for those effects. As a quick solution,
we are subsituting a preliminary version of LT (v6.0p)
for Jan - Aug 2006 for which these adjustments have been
applied. We caution that there are still likely to be some
changes to v6.0 when it is released in a month or two, but
this seemed the best path to take given the growing errors
especially in NOAA-15 LT. The remaining months prior to Jan 2006
will be v5.2 as before, so we will still label those months as
v5.2. When we have completed v6.0, we will relabel all of the
datasets accordingly.


Also, please see:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu...tltglhmam_6.0p

In article ,
Al Bedo wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:
The change currently is from .135K/decade global trend to
.128K/decade. In the future this change will underreport
warming.

Sounds like we don't need anyone to analyze MSU.
You seem to know a priori what the number is so we'll just ask you.

There are many interpretations of satellite microwave
sounding unit, or MSU, data, this team at the University of Alabama,
Huntsville, UAH, produces one that shows less warming
that the others.

For more background on MSU, please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...erature_record


I'll leave it to those who do such things to document the
connections between Spencer an Christy and the Carbon
fuel industry.


Roger Coppock wrote:
Yet Another Spencer and Christy MSU Version?

From:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu...adme.09Sep2006

Update 9 Sept 2006 *****************************

We are nearing completion of the new diurnal corrections and
the conversion of AMSU data to mimic MSU data (rather than
substituting AMSU5 for MSU2, as in v5.2). We will likely use a
statistical combination of AMSU4-9 to generate a more
realistic MSU2 from which LT and MT are derived. This will
make the time series more consistent.

The diurnal drift and hot target effects of NOAA-15 and
NOAA-16 render the recent months of v5.2 too warm since
we haven't adjusted for those effects. As a quick solution,
we are subsituting a preliminary version of LT (v6.0p)
for Jan - Aug 2006 for which these adjustments have been
applied. We caution that there are still likely to be some
changes to v6.0 when it is released in a month or two, but
this seemed the best path to take given the growing errors
especially in NOAA-15 LT. The remaining months prior to Jan 2006
will be v5.2 as before, so we will still label those months as
v5.2. When we have completed v6.0, we will relabel all of the
datasets accordingly.


Also, please see:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu...tltglhmam_6.0p


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170

--
Bomb http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5635330
http://www.gregpalast.com/ http://www.bloggermann.com/
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/11/mideast.main/
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world...rc=rss&feed=12

Jean Smith wrote:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170

This article of yours explains the reasons for last
year's new Spencer and Christy MSU Version,
5.2 We still await reasons for this years version,
6.0. S & C have had more versions of their MSU
than anyone else. Could it be their connections
with the Carbon Fuel industry?

Roger Coppock wrote:
Jean Smith wrote:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170

This article of yours explains the reasons for last
year's new Spencer and Christy MSU Version,
5.2 We still await reasons for this years version,
6.0. S & C have had more versions of their MSU
than anyone else. Could it be their connections
with the Carbon Fuel industry?

Having worked extensively with MSU data, I'm inclined to
believe it is due to the difficulty of the problem and the
fact that their approach, being the first, wasn't really the
best and thus has needed more additional work.

Cheers,
Russell

Having worked extensively with MSU data, I'm inclined to
believe it is due to the difficulty of the problem and the
fact that their approach, being the first, wasn't really the
best and thus has needed more additional work.

I agree. I know Spencer, and I've met Christy on several occasions.
They may be global warming skeptics at some level, but they're also
very good and honest scientists. When concerns about methodology have
come up, they've either dispelled those concerns with valid rebuttals
or else tried to address them. I believe their MSU results have been
far more politicized by third parties (right and left) than they have
been by S&C themselves.

There are serious technical difficulties in the use of a series of
different satellite sensors, each with a relatively short lifetime, to
measure small trends over decades.

6.0. S & C have had more versions of their MSU
than anyone else. Could it be their connections
with the Carbon Fuel industry?

What connections are those? I don't know about Christy, but Spencer
works for NASA and I'd be surprised if he was getting industrial
funding for his work.

wrote:
6.0. S & C have had more versions of their MSU
than anyone else. Could it be their connections
with the Carbon Fuel industry?

What connections are those? I don't know about Christy, but Spencer
works for NASA and I'd be surprised if he was getting industrial
funding for his work.

Christy was on the Carbon fuel industry speakers circuit.
Some of those connections are documented he
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/per...eet.php?id=903

Spencer is into the Carbon lobby bigtime:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/per...heet.php?id=19
Heartland, Tech Central Station, and George C. Marshall Institute
Also, in the far right wing magazine "Human Events"
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16376